Opinion
13-24-00106-CV
11-07-2024
ON APPEAL FROM THE 377TH DISTRICT COURT OF VICTORIA COUNTY, TEXAS
Before Contreras Chief Justice and Benavides and Silva Justices.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DORI CONTRERAS, Chief Justice.
Appellant Gottlieb A. Gutmann appeals the trial court's January 2, 2024 order granting a motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiff in the underlying suit, appellee Timothy Hennig. Appellant filed his brief on June 26, 2024. After we granted two extensions of time for appellee to file his brief, appellee instead filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on September 25, 2024, arguing that we lack jurisdiction because the January 2, 2024 order is not final and appealable. Pursuant to our request, appellant filed a response to the motion to dismiss.
Absent statutory authorization for an interlocutory appeal, this Court has no jurisdiction over the appeal of a non-final judgment. See Ogletree v. Matthews, 262 S.W.3d 316, 319 n.1 (Tex. 2007). "[A]n order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties." Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001).
Having reviewed appellee's motion to dismiss, appellant's response, and the relevant record documents, we conclude that the motion to dismiss is meritorious and should be granted. Appellee's motion for summary judgment did not pertain to all of the claims raised in his live petition. Though the trial court's January 2, 2024 order granted the summary judgment motion, it did not dispose of every claim raised in appellee's live petition, it did not state that it disposes of all claims and parties, and it did not contain any other language indicating finality. See id. Accordingly, appellee's motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).